What should the politicians do?

Comms69

chappers wrote: »

Within reason yes.

I can give you an extreme case though.
I know someone who rented a house to a lovely couple, never missed their rent, looked after the house etc. until the girlfriend ran off with the boyfriends Dad.
The boyfriend kept the house on and for the first few months everything was rosy until the boyfriend started drinking heavily.
Cut a long story short rent payments started to be come erratic and eventually tenant was over 5 months in arrears and not looking after the house, so my friend started eviction proceedings.
Not sure if it was the eviction process or what, but the tenant started acting very irrationally and started causing wilful damage to the property, my friend had to watch as they smashed every pane of glass from the windows and boarded them up with ply, over a period of time burnt most of the furniture in the back garden.
When the case came to court the council successfully petitioned for the tenant not to be evicted on the grounds of mental health and he was granted a further 3 months to stay in the property to allow the council to re-house him.
In that time he ripped up floorboards kicked holes in ceilings and ripped radiators off the wall and even went up in the loft and pushed tiles off the roof from the inside.
Anyway the three months came to an end and he still hadn't left so my friend had to go back to court to get permission to instruct the bailiffs, on the day of the eviction the bailiffs gained entry to find the tenant hanging in the hallway from the stairs.

The estimated damage to the property is somewhere in the region of £80k before even considering the lost rent and legal costs, my friend is still in what has been a 2 year legal battle to get the insurance company to pay up. Part of their reason for not paying out is that my friend should have taken better steps to evict the tenant sooner as they knew he was causing damage to the property.

Do you think that is acceptable risk to be taking as LL.
A swifter more robust eviction process could have stopped all of the damage and costs and might even have saved this poor mans life.

Whilst I sympathise, I tend to agree with the insurers, rent late, serve notice. 5 months is far too long to wait and then complain the process is slow.

mrginge

chappers wrote: »

Do you think that is acceptable risk to be taking as LL.
A swifter more robust eviction process could have stopped all of the damage and costs and might even have saved this poor mans life.

Perfectly acceptable risk given the probability of such a scenario.

You don’t make policy based on the most extreme cases.

It’s often the case that people write or say things in the order of importance to them. It’s something subtle that I always look for as it can be quite revealing.

Norman_Castle

What about tax incentives for landlords offering longer, more secure tenancies.

Comms69

one thing I've suggested for a while is council tax liability for landlords of student houses.


in university towns, like mine, there are hundreds, probably even thousands, of properties which pay no council tax at all. But charge £400-500 per month per room.

seven-day-weekend

Pixie5740 wrote: »

That’s not security. The tenant is still at the mercy of your whims.

I agree it is not security of tenure as a social tenancy would be, but we don't want to change tenants just for the fun of it. If he continues to be a good tenant he can stay.

Heliflyguy

Gosh that sounds so condescending although you probably were not trying to be so?

Anyway just get on on scrap the b****y fees then tenants can leave ASAP when their LL/agency turns out to be useless.

Wasnt there something in MS May's speech about longer tenancy's?

cloo

I just don't think small-scale private landlords are likely to be willing to offer long tenure. If they have just the rental property there are many legitimate, non-frivolous reasons they may want possession again - divorce (their own on a family member who they could help by housing); they or family member needing the capital, giving their children a deposit from the sale, upsizing themselves (as was the case when I sold my property), illness whatever. So this is where investor owned rental properties have a massive advantage for stability for tenants.

seven-day-weekend

Heliflyguy wrote: »

Gosh that sounds so condescending although you probably were not trying to be so?

Anyway just get on on scrap the b****y fees then tenants can leave ASAP when their LL/agency turns out to be useless.

Wasnt there something in MS May's speech about longer tenancy's?

I did not mean to be condescending, just stating a fact. I was actually paying my tenant a compliment saying he was a good tenant!

LdnFtB

seven-day-weekend wrote: »

I did not mean to be condescending, just stating a fact. I was actually paying my tenant a compliment saying he was a good tenant!

You've inadvertantly illustrated the problems with the amateur rental sector though. In every other service business it's the customer that rates the business, not the other way round. It's as if you're rewarding your tenant for their behaviour rather than providing them the services that they've contracted you to do.

seven-day-weekend

LdnFtB wrote: »

You've inadvertantly illustrated the problems with the amateur rental sector though. In every other service business it's the customer that rates the business, not the other way round. It's as if you're rewarding your tenant for their behaviour rather than providing them the services that they've contracted you to do.

I'm pretty sure I provide the services that you rightly point out are my duty to provide. It is HIS duty to not abuse them.